Monthly Archives: December 2012

Disingenuosity

Posted on by
Reply

On the Sunday talk shows, yesterday, President Barack Obama’s Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said, that

[T]he White House plan has “balance” and “detail” but he’s willing to hear suggested improvements.

Then he said with his wide-eyed innocent expression,

But what we cannot do is figure out what works for them.  The ball really is with them now.

This cynically ignores the fact that he knows full well “what works for” the Republicans.  They’ve made that clear through two House-passed budgets; although it’s possible (barely, but this is Geithner, who misses simple things like his personal taxes) Geithner missed this since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) refused to allow even talk about these budgets to occur on the Senate floor.  Republicans made clear all last summer and fall “what works for them,” also.

Power

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressives’ naked grab for it in the Senate: Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, UT) intends to do away with the filibuster so that he and his fellows can ram through whatever they feel like, without regard for anything the minority party—or the American people whom these represent—might have to say.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell understands the travesty of Reid’s move:

[He] called Majority Leader Harry Reid’s plan to end filibusters on motions to proceed a “naked power grab” and an “affront to the American people” Monday.  He encouraged members “on both sides” to oppose Reid’s proposal “strenuously and loudly.”

Here’s what Senator Reid and then-Senator Barack Obama had to say on the matter in 2005, during the Bush the Younger administration:

Harry Reid: [T]he filibuster is not a scheme.  And it is not new.  The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.”  It is part of the fabric of this institution.  It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.

…

It also separates us from the House of Representatives—where the majority rules.  And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government…Separation of Powers…Checks and Balances.

And the gentleman from Illinois:

Barack Obama, in an emailed response to a constituent: I recognize that the filibuster can be used for unfortunate purposes. However, I am also aware that the Founding Fathers established the filibuster as a means of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority — and that protection, with some changes, has been in place for over 200 years.  [Never mind Obama’s historical error; it’s well established he’s a mediocre student of history.]

Here he is, again, this time speaking to the National Press Club in April of that year about getting rid of the filibuster:

I remember what it was like the first several years that I was in the minority.  You couldn’t attach an amendment.  You could not get a thing done.  If you were in the minority, you might as well not have even showed up.  And then there was redistricting, and a few years later, the Democrats are in charge, and now the Republicans cannot get a thing done.  And the Democrats don’t have to pay them any attention whatsoever.

And what I worry about would be you essentially have still two chambers—the House and the Senate—but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended[.]

Hmm….

Government Regulator Abuse

Posted on by
Reply

Described by John Stossel:

Today, Americans were told that they must close their Intrade.com accounts. That happened because the federal government agency known as the “Commodity Futures Trading Commission” (CFTC) today sued the prediction market, where people from all over the world bet about things like who will win elections.

Because

Intrade has…successfully predicted events like Saddam Hussein’s capture and the winner of the Oscars.  People with the best information trade about those events, and drive up the odds on Intrade.

After all, such things are against US financial regulations, don’t you know:

Section 4c(b) and 9(a)(3) of the [Commodity Exchange] Act, §§6c(b) and 13(a)(3) (2006); Section 2(e) of the Act, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Act, to be codified at 7 U.S.C. § 2(e); and Regulation 32, as amended, to be codified at 17 C.F.R. § 32 (2011)

The CFTC is, here, specifically and deliberately targeting “prediction markets:”

It is against the law to solicit US persons to buy and sell commodity options, even if they are called “prediction” contracts, unless they are…traded on a CFTC-registered exchange….  Today’s action should make it clear that we will intervene in the “prediction” markets, wherever they may be based.

Why does this matter?  Because if the government can “intervene” to destroy an obscure little idea and the free market business it generated, it can do so in the free market generally, and that market becomes a  government run market.

The CFTC argues that the regulation

is important for a number of reasons, including that it enables the CFTC to police market activity.

So the CFTC says it’s necessary to enforce so that it can enforce.  Nothing circular here.

One more thing.  The CFTC has, with this…position…placed your penny-ante poker game at risk, too.  After all, each of you, as you deal the next round, are soliciting options on the future—of your and your opponents’ hands.

An Obamacare Outcome

Posted on by
Reply

Dr Peter Weiss, a practicing physician, describes one.

I have now posted a notice in my office and each exam room stating exactly what Obamacare will cover for those yearly visits.  Remember Obama promised this as a free exam—no co-pay, no deductible, no charge.  That’s fine and dandy if you are healthy and have no complaints.  However, we are obligated by law to code specifically for the reason of the visit.  An annual exam is one specific code; you can not mix this with another code, say, for rectal bleeding.  This annual visit covers the exam and “discussion about the status of previously diagnosed stable conditions.” That’s the exact wording under that code—insurance will not cover any new ailment under that code.

What this means:

If you are here for that annual exam, you will not be covered if you want to discuss any new ailment or unstable condition.  I cannot bait and switch to another code—that’s illegal.  We, the physicians, are audited all the time and can lose our license for insurance fraud.

Yeah.  A separate appointment, separately scheduled for your new ailment.  Further, during your scheduled annual, note that bit above: “discussion about the status of previously diagnosed stable conditions.” That’s the exact wording under that code….  Your doctor’s discussion concerning your annual’s results are largely scripted by Uncle Sugar.  Talk about snake oil.

Oh, and good luck scheduling that separate appointment.  Keep in mind that your doctor, if you get to keep him at all, is part of a shrinking collection of doctors, and their work loads are exploding from all the new patients Obamacare is foisting off on them.  There are only so many hours in a day.

 

RTWT

Tax “Negotiation”

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another example of the Progressive view of negotiations.

In public statements, [Treasury Secretary Timothy, who has joined the negotiations] Geithner has suggested he will hold the line on the core White House demand to raise tax rates on wealthier Americans.  If “people look at this and look at it carefully, they’ll come to the judgment we reached,” he said at a Wall Street Journal conference earlier this month, adding that this meant “higher rates” and limits on tax deductions.

Because, of course, they’re right; anyone with any sense will agree with them, so that question is closed.

This is consistent with the new Obama position of being willing to discuss only tax raises, with spending cuts and entitlement reform completely off the table.  Progressives will talk about them later.  They promise.